Under the auspices of the case, Novartis AG filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nativa LLC claiming that its active patent on «Tyrosine kinase inhibitors» (No. 2348627) is used both in the “original” drug “Tasigna” and “generic” drug “Nilotinib-native”[1], while registration of the “generic” drug before the Ministry of Health threatens to violate the patent.

The lawsuit was partially satisfied: the first-instance court (1) recognized the use of the patent in the opposing drugs and (2) prohibited the defendant to market the “generic” drug until the patent expires. Continue Reading

Suppose that you want to federally register a trademark that identifies a source of goods or services related to your cannabis business. What if the trademark covers merchandise indirectly related to cannabis or products directly related to the use of cannabis? Should you attempt to register your trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? Can you obtain a registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? The answer is it depends on the cannabis related goods and services.

The Collective Management Organisations in Greece are subject to the legal framework of the Law 2121/1993, as amended recently by Law 4481/2017 regarding the collective management of copyright and related rights, thereby the Greek legislation was harmonised with the Directive 2014/26/EU.

In this article we aim to focus on one aspect of the new statute and, particularly, to clarify the types of entities that can collectively manage copyright and related rights, to illustrate their main differences, concerning both their operation mode as well as the management rights attributed to them, and to highlight one of the new law’s basic purposes, the reinforcement of their transparency and accountability, taking into consideration the management problems that, the Hellenic Society for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AEPI SA), the biggest CMO in Greece, dealt and deals with. Continue Reading

On the heels of issuing more than 90 letters to celebrities, bloggers and other influencers in April 2017, as well as receiving continued petitions by watchdog organizations such as Public Citizen, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought its first direct action against individual influencers for failing to disclose their material connections on social media.

At the same time, the FTC sent a second round of warning letters to a subset of the original 90 letter recipients, and also updated its staff publication “The FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking” (the FAQs) with additional guidance and clarification for both influencers and marketers. Continue Reading

Recent years have witnessed a surge in the United States in the appreciation for fine food and those who create it. Indeed, the concept of the “celebrity chef” has taken such hold in the United States that there are entire television networks and countless magazines (on-line and in print) to cooking, recipes, chefs and the like, not to mention a wide variety of restaurants at all price points trading on the name and reputation of such chefs. Indeed, in much the same way that sports fans snap pictures of star athletes or look for Top Ten highlights, diners now post from well-known (or even not so well known) eateries on-line reviews and uploaded photographs of each course served to memorialize their memorable food encounters; would-be diners and others take it all in as they try to decide what and where to eat.

Though often motivated by a desire to share the pure joy of delicious meal, this posting trend has become so pervasive, public and indiscriminate that it has engendered a more negative name for its seamier side—food porn! As one chef noted, food porn “takes away the surprise, and a little bit of my intellectual property.” Because chefs, especially in the United States, have not always had a clear path to controlling the depiction of their creations, controlling food porn has usually been left to the too-frequently-absent discretion of the diners, much to the chefs’ chagrin. But that may have changed with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, 137 S.Ct. 1002 (2017), which we have written about once or twice before. If Star Athletica is given in food cases the sort of application found in an August 30, 2017 decision by a federal court in the Southern District of New York in a lighting case called JetMax v. Odd Lots, chefs may have something to cheer about. Continue Reading

Recently the Korea Supreme Court issued a significant ruling, providing guidance on the availability of statutory damages in trademark infringement actions. This article discusses that ruling.

Under the Trademark Act of the Republic of Korea (“the Act”), a trademark owner is entitled to receive compensation for damage arising from its trademark being infringed. The trademark owner can receive one of the following types of damages[1]:

Actual Damages resulting from the infringement;

Estimated Damages – the Act provides various ways of estimating damages, such as an estimate based on the fees normally paid to the owner by someone using the trademark;

Statutory (Legal) Damages – compensation for a reasonable amount, not exceeding 50 million won (approximately $44,000 U.S. dollars).

In ordinary situations, when estimating damages, the trademark owner must prove that its trademark has been infringed as well as the fees that normally would be paid for the trademark’s use. The trademark owner is not required to claim and/or prove the existence of its damages in detail. However, if the trademark owner has simply registered the trademark without actually using it—which is permitted under Korean law, unlike U.S. law – then the infringer typically will deny the existence of any damages. Such an argument effectively would deprive the owner of any right to compensation, even though the owner has properly registered the mark. Continue Reading

When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) rejects a patent application, the applicant has two options for judicial review. It can either appeal directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. §141, or file a new (“de novo”) civil action against the Director of the PTO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under §145. Unlike an appeal, a de novo proceeding entitles a rejected applicant to some procedural advantages, such as the ability to conduct discovery and to introduce new evidence, rather than relying solely on the record made before the PTO in prosecuting the patent application.

In order to prevent an abuse of this civil action pathway, §145 also expressly provides that “all the expenses of the proceeding” shall be paid by the applicant, “regardless of the outcome.” Traditionally, courts have interpreted the word “expenses” to mean out-of-pocket costs the PTO incurs, such as printing, travel, and expert fees. However, in 2013, the PTO changed its position and began arguing that “all expenses” included its attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit has now held that “all expenses” also applies to the PTO’s attorneys’ fees, regardless of the outcome of the suit. Continue Reading

Intellectual property laws are aimed at allowing intellectual property owners to hold rights in their property for a certain period of time to the exclusion of all others. Exclusivity is the essential purpose of intellectual property rights. Conversely, the essence of fair trade laws is to prevent monopolies and establish fair competition. The different purposes of these laws often give rise to conflicts.

The tension between these laws is demonstrated when fair trade laws are used to prevent intellectual property owners from exercising their intellectual property rights. This happens with increasing frequency. Countries around the world have established and strengthened rules, such as the “Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property” (prepared jointly by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission) or the “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union” (Articles 101-102). These rules reflect the decisions of courts and administrative bodies that have held that the exercise of certain intellectual property rights can constitute unfair trade practices. Continue Reading

Under the merits of the case, in 2016 the charity fund for helping children with oncohematological and other serious diseases “Podari Jizn” (CF “Podari Jizn”) filed a lawsuit against a copycat, non-profit charity fund «Podari Jizn» (NP CF “Podari Jizn”), seeking to prohibit the same word combination in the naming.

The plaintiff alleged that NP CF «Podari Jizn» contravened the exclusive right to non-profit organization name when it registered and used the same naming.

However the courts of the first and appeal instances denied the claims on the ground that non-profit organization name is not de jure listed as an IP asset in the Civil Code and therefore is not subject to judicial protection. Continue Reading

Readers of this blog may well be familiar with the regional exhaustion rule which applies to IP rights in the EU, including (for the time being) the UK. Under this rule, IP rights can be exhausted where they are put on the market with the consent of the proprietor in one part of the EU, even if they are parallel imported to another Member State and sold there as ‘grey’ product. But there is no international exhaustion, which would allow the sale of grey goods from countries outside the European Economic Area[i], even where they have been sold on those markets with the brand owner’s consent. All of this is now fairly well established.

The UK, like most other EU countries, backs up civil causes of action for IP infringement with criminal sanctions to cover the most egregious cases, i.e. counterfeiting and pirating, but there has always been a question mark over the extent to which these criminal sanctions should apply to infringements relating to grey imports from outside the EEA. A case recently came before the highest domestic UK Court – the Supreme Court – where this issue arose in the context of the offences which applied to misuse of registered trade marks for commercial purposes[ii]. Continue Reading

Stay Connected

About the ILN IP Specialty Group

Headed by Eddie Powell of Fladgate LLP, London, and Norman Zivin of Cooper & Dunham LLP, New York, New York, the ILN's Intellectual Property Group provides the platform for enhanced communication, enabling all of its members to easily service the needs of their clients requiring advice on cross-border transactions. Members of the group meet regularly at ILN conferences and industry events, and have collaborated on discussions and publications of mutual interest.